Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

juliagalef.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 194 posts

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#21

Post by MattRix »

Aloha wrote: post #16
maehwasu wrote: post #12

> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people have, including Google, who called them “inco…

Hear! hear! It's very sad to me that we as a society are not.. 'evolved' enough to discuss stuff like this as rational adults - it turns into a very personal argument very very quickly because people feel you are attacking their identity - rather than say, discussing things they have no control over because of the weird mix of nature and nurture that guides us into adulthood. I'm hoping sincerely that the era of iden…

These "facts" are used in harmful ways against individuals. Stereotypes are harmful. Unless a stereotype applies to literally 100 percent of a population then they ARE going to hurt those people who do not fit it.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#22

Post by someguydave »

maehwasu wrote: post #12

> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people have, including Google, who called them “inco…

>It's intellectually stifling, and I'm no longer interested in enabling people who use that kind of rhetoric.

Not only is it stifling, it is tearing our society apart. If a person believes one of these "forbidden hypotheses" they sudden find themselves to be the target of irrational hatred and hostile actions.

Everyone must understand that demonizing people creates demons who may one day seek violent revenge.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#23

Post by MattRix »

maehwasu wrote: post #12

> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people have, including Google, who called them “inco…

The problem is that there still are strong systemic biases at work. Once we get that fixed, maybe we can move on to the nitty gritty statistics of exactly what is nature/nurture etc. At this moment it's pointless.

It reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ihNLEDiuM

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#24

Post by maehwasu »

MattRix wrote: post #21
Aloha wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear! hear! It's very sad to me that we as a society are not.. 'evolved' enough to discuss stuff like this as rational adults - it turns into a very personal argument very very quickly because people feel you are attacking their identity - rather than say, discussing things they have no control over because of the weird mix of nature and nurture that guides us into adulthood. I'm hoping sincerely that the era of iden…

These "facts" are used in harmful ways against individuals. Stereotypes are harmful. Unless a stereotype applies to literally 100 percent of a population then they ARE going to hurt those people who do not fit it.

This is a great example of only examining costs of a hypothesis without examining the benefits.

Literally ANY opinion/fact/belief set looks like pure evil if you only examine costs.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#25

Post by maehwasu »

MattRix wrote: post #23
maehwasu wrote: post #12

> However, his overall claim that there exist personality differences between genders that differentially affect men’s and women’s interest in and aptitude for tech jobs, is what people are mostly getting mad at. And that’s a claim that seems plausibly true. Not obviously true, but also not a claim you would be justified in emphatically dismissing as false, as many people have, including Google, who called them “inco…

The problem is that there still are strong systemic biases at work. Once we get that fixed, maybe we can move on to the nitty gritty statistics of exactly what is nature/nurture etc. At this moment it's pointless. It reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ihNLEDiuM

1. The goalposts for how much systemic biases have been "fixed" are moved constantly and predictably.

2. Much of the argument for the existence of systemic biases comes from willful, repeated ignoring of the already extant evidence for nature/nurture.

3. When ignoring evidence no longer suffices, proponents of the systemic bias theory move immediately to unpersoning their opponents as racist/sexist bigots.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#26

Post by ryan-allen »

my_first_acct wrote: post #4

Recycling (and slightly modifying) a previous comment [0]: Certain topics, that otherwise might be interesting to discuss, are surrounded by minefields. One such topic is the distribution of intellectual ability within subgroups of the population. This minefield was not put in place by a repressive government. Nor was it secretly put in place overnight by a fanatic band of social-justice zealots. My observation, whic…

It's better to let people discuss these topics rather than to try to stop them talking about them. If the sentiments exist and they are repressed they will simply go underground where you cannot see them. Don't you want to know what your opposition think?

Painting those you disagree with (whether you're wrong, or you're right) with the bigot brush is not going to bring any change, there's only two choices: violence or discussion, so let's discuss.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#27

Post by VarFarYonder »

retube wrote: post #17

I don't understand why it's such big news. No matter what's in it, it's just some random guy who happens to work at google. It's not a senior exec, it's not an official google position, it's.... nothing. I just don't understand why what this guy thinks warrants discussion?

It's not about the guy. It's about what he said. And what he said is highly polarizing.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#28

Post by matt4077 »

Yes, there may or may not be biological differences. Or cultural differences. In fact, it's almost certainly both, and it really doesn't matter.

The single most important argument people like this ex-Googler never seem to understand is that they're confusing what is with what ought to be.

If there's one defining characteristic of humanity, it's our ability to overcome biology (the 'hardware',so to speak), using our unique 'software' of self-awareness and abstract reasoning.

Even if there were jobs that women were less qualified for, or had less interest in, we would want lower the difference, with equal representation if possible.

Take politics as an easy example: it's a profession that is closely associated with a bunch of stereotypical 'male' characteristics, such as the pursuit of power and the willingness to engage in conflict.

BUT: even if women as a group had a lower propensity to seek elected office, they still have an interest in being represented somewhat proportionally.

That argument easily extends to leadership positions in the private sector, and it has become relevant for the IT industry because of the growing power of technology over all aspects of life.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#29

Post by mc32 »

I previously mentioned that in a previous life, I worked myself thru school --somewhat blue collar jobs.

People, predominantly older black and white, under-educated, had quite a few views people who go beyond high school might consider offensive or ignorant and stereotyping: about race, aptitude, gender, sexuality, weight, promiscuity, prowess, etc.

You know what --people worked, they joked, occasionally scuffled --and got over it. They made their money, they saved, they retired.

It could have been better. It could have been more professional. It could have been nice and bland (in a good way)

You know one thing people didn't shy away from was strong opinions on things, one way or the other. No one got fired for cursing, or being un-PC. You'd get sacked for theft, but they called their managers and bosses asses all the time. I can't imagine Googlers calling their bosses arseholes [even if deserved]

I sometimes miss blue collar candor. Of course, when you're in it, it gets tiresome, redundant and unproductive.

Re: Brief thoughts on the “Google memo”

#30

Post by VarFarYonder »

troupe wrote: post #10
angersock wrote: post #7

Author does good here, but perpetuates the same mistake most people talking about the memo do: There were additional sections after the "hypothesis", which had specific policy suggestions--most of which were aimed at helping the situation for a broader class of people and for improving visibility into the process. That somehow keeps getting missed.

And he also pointed out that people are scared to actually talk about these things at Google. Considering he was fired, that seemed like a pretty on the mark observation.

If worked at Google and thought the evidence suggests that due to natural difference in the sexes, women are less likely to seek a job in tech -- that's not an ethical opinion on whether that is as it should be, but an opinion (whether right or wrong) on how things are -- then I'd be more scared than ever of voicing that opinion.
Post reply on HN